Statewide Design & Print Pty Ltd v Icon Supplies Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCATAP 297

Statewide Design & Print Pty Ltd v Icon Supplies Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCATAP 297

The appeal was allowed because the primary hearing denied Statewide procedural fairness by treating the matter as an open-and-shut contract case and refusing Statewide a proper opportunity to present evidence and argument. On re-hearing, Icon failed to establish any contract with Statewide for the supply of a Kia Rio or that the agent was Statewide's agent. Although Icon's claim could be characterised as a consumer claim for money had and received based on mistaken payment, Statewide had in good faith released its PPSR security on the faith of receiving the payment, giving it a justified change of position defence. Icon's application for refund was therefore dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Consumer Claim Concerning Alleged Motor Vehicle Contract and Refund of Payment / Internal Appeal to the Appeal Panel and Re Hearing of the Primary Application
Outcome
Appeal allowed; on re-hearing the primary application was dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['motor Vehicle Supply' 'procedural Fairness' 'total Failure of Consideration' 'money Had and Received' 'mistaken Payment' 'change of Position Defence' 'internal Appeal' 'costs in Ncat']
['consumer Law' 'administrative Law' 'restitution' 'costs'] ['motor Vehicle Supply' 'procedural Fairness' 'total Failure of Consideration' 'money Had and Received' 'mistaken Payment' 'change of Position Defence' 'internal Appeal' 'costs in Ncat']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Consumer Claim Concerning Alleged Motor Vehicle Contract and Refund of Payment / Internal Appeal to the Appeal Panel and Re Hearing of the Primary Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary decision involved a denial of procedural fairness by determining the matter on the first return without giving Statewide an opportunity to present evidence and argument.' 'Whether Icon established a contract with Statewide for Statewide to supply a Kia Rio in return for the payment of $12,000.' 'Whether Icon could recover the $12,000 as money had and received by reason of mistaken payment.' 'Whether Statewide had a change of position defence because it released its PPSR security in good faith on receipt of the payment.' 'Whether special circumstances justified a costs order.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the primary hearing denied Statewide procedural fairness by treating the matter as an open-and-shut contract case and refusing Statewide a proper opportunity to present evidence and argument. On re-hearing, Icon failed to establish any contract with Statewide for the supply of a Kia Rio or that the agent was Statewide's agent. Although Icon's claim could be characterised as a consumer claim for money had and received based on mistaken payment, Statewide had in good faith released its PPSR security on the faith of receiving the payment, giving it a justified change of position defence. Icon's application for refund was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; on re-hearing the primary application was dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'On a re-hearing of the primary application, dismiss the application.' 'Make no order as to the costs of the appeal and of the re-hearing.']